God, I hate Brandolini's Law, but it always applies...

Like last time, you're mistaking wishful thinking for analysis. I totally get that you're emotionally invested in a fantasy of Israeli fragility, but it just doesn't hold.

Unless I'm profoundly misunderstanding your position, what you wish to believe is this: "If not for US military aid, the monetary cost of defense spending and the human cost of military and civilian losses would cause Israel to crumble."

You actually could have made a good point if you haven't over-extended. Without US monetary aid, Israel would spend 10-25% more on its military. Without the United States expending its own interceptors (e.g. THAAD, Patriot -- though your mention of "Iron Dome," a defense layer made for short-range rockets rather than IRBMs, highlights a deep misunderstanding of some really basic-level stuff), Israel would take much higher human losses on the home front.

Neither of these things are society-rending, even if you really, really, really, want Israel to crumble.

Without US financial aid to Israel's military (roughly one-sixth of Israeli defense spending ovre the past two decades), Israel would spend on its military a percentage of its GDP that's pretty similar to its 1948-1973 era. Israel survived that, and there's little reason to think it wouldn't survive it again.

Without US burning their own inventory of interceptors, Israelis' war experience would be significantly worse in terms of human losses: Likely similar to Ukraine today, Britain during the Blitz, or any number of countries who have sustained moderate pain on the home front during wartime. Like other countries who've been in that situation, Israel would be overwhelmingly likely to survive that suffering.

has proven to be penetrated by modern irgc weapons

This is a particularly bizarre framing. Missile and drone defense doctrine assumes a goal of intercepting most incoming ordnance. The fact that some have gotten through isn't a "proof" against a claim of invulnerability that was never made. It's just a tragic fact that no system is ever going to be 100% effective, and it was never expected to be. Also, again: Iron Dome is for short-range rockets. The systems that are salient to IRBMs are David's Sling, Arrow 2, and Arrow 3. If one is getting such easy 101-level stuff wrong, one might do well to consider whether the stridency of one's opinion outstrips one's grasp of incredibly basic facts.

Israel's strategic position is also far better than it was during the 1949-1967 period when it was without substantial US support. It no longer has full-strength militaries along every land border. It no longer has an 11-mile wasp's waist in the centre sapping strategic depth, or Syrian overwatch on the edge of the Golan plateau. Sixty years ago, Israel had air superiority. Today, that gap has widened to something approaching air supremacy.

You had half of a useful argument when you correctly pointed out that, without material US aid and support, Israel would be worse off than it is today. After that, you missed making any argument that this would cause Israel to crumble, and you seem to handwaved away the fact that Israel's strategic situation is much, much better than it was pre-'67.

tl;dr: Wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which fills up first.

tl;dr 2: Clearly, I didn't want to deal with the pile of laundry that I've got to do, and I appreciate the excuse to procrastinate.